This is a thread specifically for Republicans and conservatives on this forum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the sense that just about every one of you really don't like Mitt Romney as a Presidential candidate against Obama. That may not be universally true of all of you folks, but I'd think it's true of much of you, if not nearly all of you.

At the same time, outside of the minority of you who were big on Ron Paul, Romney was unquestionably the best candidate for your party out of the primaries, was he not? At least among the people who were doing anything in the polls. Santorum led at one point, as did Michelle Bachmann but I think all the DC conservatives here hate both. I don't think a single one of you have an ounce of respect for Newt Gingrich or Herman Cain as POTUS candidates (my apologies if you actually do). And Rick Perry was... well, Rick Perry.

Yes, I know most of you would prefer almost all those folks to Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that this seemed like a particularly weak crop.

I am not a conservative or a Republican, but I think compared to previous primary fields for your party, this was a very weak cycle in terms of POTUS candidates.

My question is -- why do you think that is? Why do you think we had such a weak crop of POTUS candidates for your party?

Because right now, it really does seem like the GOP has a deeper bench of people that have Presidential timber than do the Democrats, who outside of Obama and Hillary Clinton, don't really have much of a bench at all. And yet... these candidates didn't seem to have their shit together.

I'm just interested in picking your brains. I'm not even remotely interested in debating or arguing, just wanted to see what your points of view on the subject might be.

Your entire party is bashing anyone and everyone that is due or collecting "Entitlements", yet you back them. So with that being the case, isn't it hypocritical for you, as a die hard Republican, to accept Social Security benefits, especially since your party is attempting demonize ALL entitlements?

Are you a cafeteria Republican?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

The one good thing about an Obama reelection is I won't need to be concerned my benefits will be cut. While he kicks the can down the alley I win and you'll get stuck with the bill. Awesome.

Dude, here's the BIG difference between you and your ilk and me: I have NEVER, not for ONE second, EVER thought I'd see Social Security benefits. EVER.

I've heard this story since I was a kid in the 80's: The government is abusing Social Security and it won't be there in 20 years, blah, blah, blah. So, I've never once counted on it. Ever.

Furthermore, retirement is a joke. Unless you have at least $2 million in the bank and your home completely paid off by age 65, you're not retiring at age 65. Well, unless you live in a city or state that's either extremely cheap or extremely depressed.

I'm pretty much planning to work until the day I die. And that's fine by me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

And define 'poser'. I'd like to know what you mean by that. That's such an old term I'd like to know if there is more meaning.

Phony. Fake. In your case, RINO. Those aren't insults, they're fact. If you truly believed in what your party was spewing, you'd refuse to cash the SS checks.

Your entire party is bashing anyone and everyone that is due or collecting "Entitlements", yet you back them. So with that being the case, isn't it hypocritical for you, as a die hard Republican, to accept Social Security benefits, especially since your party is attempting demonize ALL entitlements?

Are you a cafeteria Republican?

First of all yes I'm a cafeteria republican. I go against the grain because I'm willing to do what it takes to turn the economy around. In that I believe we should drop all the Obama tax cuts across the board since a flat tax is out of the question.

Either you aren't paying attention or your partisan rose colored glasses are getting in the way of what republicans believe about entitlements. I think most conservatives believe there is a place for things like Medicaid. There will always be people that need it. What we don't like is abuse of the system. Abuse can be people going out of their way to live off the government, and it can also be a political party implementing policies that make it easy for people to abuse it. For the later I'll use the 2009 stimulus as an example. Dems spent a trillion dollars as a stop gap and food stamps have still risen to record numbers. That's fact you can't spin.

Instead of working to keep SS solvent, we passed a 2% payroll tax cut for little more than political reasons. Both parties are guilty of that. Both parties are guilty of the position we're in. It's time to take the medicine and quit lying to the public.

Quote:

Dude, here's the BIG difference between you and your ilk and me: I have NEVER, not for ONE second, EVER thought I'd see Social Security benefits. EVER.

I've heard this story since I was a kid in the 80's: The government is abusing Social Security and it won't be there in 20 years, blah, blah, blah. So, I've never once counted on it. Ever.

Furthermore, retirement is a joke. Unless you have at least $2 million in the bank and your home completely paid off by age 65, you're not retiring at age 65. Well, unless you live in a city or state that's either extremely cheap or extremely depressed.

I'm pretty much planning to work until the day I die. And that's fine by me.

I'm thrilled you are willing to for go SS. I doubt that you will not accept the benefit though when the time comes. I think it's silly you are paying into the system and don't want to keep your politicians accountable. Maybe that's the difference between us, I have this expectation for accountability. There is nothing, repeat nothing, wrong with expecting the government to hold up their end of the bargain in the SS contract. Not to do so just means you're part of the problem and politicians will just use you as a pawn.

Quote:

Phony. Fake. In your case, RINO. Those aren't insults, they're fact. If you truly believed in what your party was spewing, you'd refuse to cash the SS checks.

While I agree with your definition I don't agree with your conclusion. To play the 'if you believe in your convictions you wouldn't cash the checks' card is just a way to justify ignoring the issue.

You know Pat, you've been proven to be even more of a disconnected ****ing prick in this thread.

If calling someone a "Pedo" is your only line of defense, not only are you a ****ing scumbag, you've lost the fight.

There has NEVER been a bigger ****ing pussy in the HISTORY of Chiefsplanet than you.

You're a 49 year old piece of ****ing shit. You should be embarrassed, Mother****er, but clearly, you're too ****ing stupid.

You're an illiterate moron. I didn't call anyone a pedo. What I actually said was you talk about raping kids a lot (which is true, no fewer than 3 unprovoked references in this thread) but that I was glad you got it out of your system without actually doing it. That's the opposite of saying you sexually molest kids. That said, I don't know you at all so I don't know whether you do or not. I do know you're a creepy guy who loses control easily though.

__________________

“Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it.” - Lindsay Graham

You're an illiterate moron. I didn't call anyone a pedo. What I actually said was you talk about raping kids a lot (which is true, no fewer than 3 unprovoked references in this thread) but that I was glad you got it out of your system without actually doing it. That's the opposite of saying you sexually molest kids. That said, I don't know you at all so I don't know whether you do or not. I do know you're a creepy guy who loses control easily though.

Quoting you - Dig up whatever responses you want, just stay away from my kids.

Did you think that possibly people don't want to click in a thread and see a photo of a dead body? I guess anything to make your point, huh? Piece of shit.

He wasn't dead in that picture according to witnesses. Just to be safe, maybe you should put me on ignore. You'd better batten down your information hatches even tighter than they already are if that picture offended you.

__________________

“Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it.” - Lindsay Graham

Quoting you - Dig up whatever responses you want, just stay away from my kids.

Close enough.

It either was or it wasn't. In this case, it clearly wasn't (as evidenced by the fact that you had to resort to saying it was "close"). "Close" can mean anything depending on any arbitrary standard like whether or not I've clowned you in the past.

We're talking about a guy who, unprompted by any talk on my part of sex with children, asserted that I'd be fine with the rape of my daughter as long as the deficit was addressed. That comment had absolutely nothing to do with the topic or, obviously, reality. And you apparently had no problem with it. But if I tell the creepy guy to stay away from my kid, I've come too close. You're a joke.

__________________

“Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it.” - Lindsay Graham

It either was or it wasn't. In this case, it clearly wasn't (as evidenced by the fact that you had to resort to saying it was "close"). "Close" can mean anything depending on any arbitrary standard like whether or not I've clowned you in the past.

We're talking about a guy who, unprompted by any talk on my part of sex with children, asserted that I'd be fine with the rape of my daughter as long as the deficit was addressed. That comment had absolutely nothing to do with the topic or, obviously, reality. And you apparently had no problem with it. But if I tell the creepy guy to stay away from my kid, I've come too close. You're a joke.

The comment about rape obviously had to do with the far right wing wanted to outlaw abortions even in the case of rape. His assertion was that you are more concerned about the deficit than that particular social issue. The comment was out of line (leave families out of this) but in no way was he advocating that act.

He wasn't dead in that picture according to witnesses. Just to be safe, maybe you should put me on ignore. You'd better batten down your information hatches even tighter than they already are if that picture offended you.

By the time the pic was published, it was well known that he was dead at that point. It's damn sure known that he is dead in the pic at this point.

The comment about rape obviously had to do with the far right wing wanted to outlaw abortions even in the case of rape. His assertion was that you are more concerned about the deficit than that particular social issue. The comment was out of line (leave families out of this) but in no way was he advocating that act.

I didn't say he advocated the act. I said he (falsely) accused me of being indifferent to it as long as the deficit was reduced. Coming up with a completely out-of-the-blue example like that after twice posting about baby-rape as if I find it acceptable in a candidate makes him a creepy guy though, IMO. And let's not lose sight of the fact that I ignored his creepiness the first couple of times, but he didn't seem to want to take that for an answer.

I don't know if the comment was out of line or not, but it provides the context for my later comments. It's curious that you read right past them without pointing out that they were out of line though and then somehow found the motivation to criticize my response.

__________________

“Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it.” - Lindsay Graham